Aubrey de Grey, a biomedical gerontologist from Cambridge University, goes much further. He believes the first person to live to 1,000 has already been born and told the meeting that periodic repairs to the body using stem cells, gene therapy and other techniques could eventually stop the aging process entirely.

I am unsure personally, I can see how technology is advancing at an extremely rapid rate, but I believe that such a prediction cannot be made when we take into account other factors such as the threat of global warming and nuclear war. We could destroy ourselves before we reach such advancements. It's definitely interesting to speculate upon though.

Laurens wrote:PS sorry for the poor wording in the title, I couldn't fit 'The first person to live for 1000 years has already been born' as the title.

*clap clap clap*

Aubrey had his 20 minutes of fame at TED, which is where I know his ideas from. Everything considered, I think this is just marketing. He needs investors to fund his research, and what better way to find them than to spark the hope of (sometimes only prospectively) rich old men to extend their lifespans? May I refer you to exhibit A: Casshern? An interesting sci-fi movie adaptation of an anime series popular in the 70s. A researcher is working on what could be called stemcell research but at first lacks investors; the military becomes his first, a group of rich old men of status follows suit.

I would be surprised if anyone alive today would live to be 200 and still retain a reasonably healthy mental condition.

I am determined that my children shall be brought up in their father's religion, if they can find out what it is.Charles Lamb (1775 - 1834)

Atheism is a non-prophet organization.

Last edited by Case on Tue May 10, 2011 3:57 pm, edited 2 times in total.

TBH, if people lived that long, I would expect to see people in their 400s or older going out and seeking trouble, doing incredibly dangerous activities with little regard for safety. Not actually committing suicide as such, but just stopping short of attempting it. In 400 years, you could do almost everything there is to do. How many times could you see even something like the rings of Saturn or the cliffs of Olympus Mons before it became dull?

"When I come to my own beliefs, I find myself quite unable to discern any purpose in the universe, and still more unable to wish to discern one." ~ Bertrand Russell"If we do not succeed, we run the risk of failure." ~ Dan Quayle

nasher168 wrote:TBH, if people lived that long, I would expect to see people in their 400s or older going out and seeking trouble, doing incredibly dangerous activities with little regard for safety. Not actually committing suicide as such, but just stopping short of attempting it. In 400 years, you could do almost everything there is to do. How many times could you see even something like the rings of Saturn or the cliffs of Olympus Mons before it became dull?

I dunno. There's a lot to do. Mastering every instrument would take a damn long time. Being on the cutting edge and inventing technology could potentially last a long time (I think of this because I started with "mastering programming would take a long time" and then realized that it's even harder than that because programming keeps changing and advancing). After that you get into sports and competitive things where everyone gets better together. Then you can do things like mastering pottery and artistic stuff... And then, eventually, you would move towards mastering extreme sports, which would progressively get more extreme and likely result in death.

MRaverz wrote:The planet has enough trouble with an ever increasing human population as it is, increasing a human's lifespan for another 900 years simply isn't feasible unless we start colonising Mars already.

Great, look what you've done. You've derailed the thread. Happy now?

I am determined that my children shall be brought up in their father's religion, if they can find out what it is.Charles Lamb (1775 - 1834)

I've always thought that it would be great to live for a thousand years. I'm sure I'd find enough to learn and do to fill all that time. I do agree though that in the end you'd get bored. Who knows what you'd end up doing if the possibility of indefinite life existed. Maybe go into suspended animation for years at a time to see what future technology would bring...

“I don't believe in an afterlife, so I don't have to spend my whole life fearing hell, or fearing heaven even more. For whatever the tortures of hell, I think the boredom of heaven would be even worse.” - Isaac Asimov

I would go with the idea that this is possible, and also should be done, mainly for the creative thinking our best humans can provide us. You too, can be Eloi, but it will cost you some effort. As for GW and other dangers, someone will survive and these lucky folk usually are the cream of the crop or wallet.

And then this would be useful in space, if we can take control of the facilities to get there. Be positive, live long and prosper.

Aubrey de Grey, a biomedical gerontologist from Cambridge University, goes much further. He believes the first person to live to 1,000 has already been born and told the meeting that periodic repairs to the body using stem cells, gene therapy and other techniques could eventually stop the aging process entirely.

I am unsure personally, I can see how technology is advancing at an extremely rapid rate, but I believe that such a prediction cannot be made when we take into account other factors such as the threat of global warming and nuclear war. We could destroy ourselves before we reach such advancements. It's definitely interesting to speculate upon though.

Perhaps you and I are indeed going to be among the first to live beyond 1000 years?

Laurens wrote:Perhaps you and I are indeed going to be among the first to live beyond 1000 years?

Like going to space, if it's possible it will be for the super rich for a rather long time so I don't belive that in the near future it will be possible for poor me to buy my way into the 200 club. So, no, maybe just you (If you are VERY rich), have fun with your fancy - shmancy flying car, robot wife and 5 calories a day diet.

nasher168 wrote:TBH, if people lived that long, I would expect to see people in their 400s or older going out and seeking trouble, doing incredibly dangerous activities with little regard for safety. Not actually committing suicide as such, but just stopping short of attempting it. In 400 years, you could do almost everything there is to do. How many times could you see even something like the rings of Saturn or the cliffs of Olympus Mons before it became dull?

Robert Sheckly wrote a SF story where the government clears out excess people by having suicide booths at the neighborhood corners, like telephones in UK years ago. One was even in the Marquesas, French Polynesia, he writes in an oh by the way, as if it was a public lavatory.

Personally, you would see all kinds. I have known a guy about 80 who wanted to learn Morse code and was doing well. If the past is any judge, people would come in fits and starts. Some genetics would be more difficult to repair than others, and still we would have holdout ailments. So there would be Jonathan Swift's Struldbrugs.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Struldbrug

I recall a number of years ago reading about a experiment where the researchers allowed chromosomes to copy themselves for a number of generations before freezing them and then unfreezing them to allow the copying process to continue - regardless, the copying process only lasted a set number of generations before errors accumulated to such an extent that the process broke down.

I'm not sure how one would get around this without having to replace natural chromosomes with genetically-engineered ones that had a longer copying lifetime.

Kindest regards,

James

"The Word of God is the Creation we behold and it is in this Word, which no human invention can counterfeit or alter, that God speaketh universally to man."The Age Of Reason

Dragan Glas wrote:number of generations before freezing them and then unfreezing them to allow the copying process to continue - regardless, the copying process only lasted a set number of generations before errors accumulated to such an extent that the process broke down.

I'm not sure how one would get around this without having to replace natural chromosomes with genetically-engineered ones that had a longer copying lifetime.

IIRC we would have to re-write our code. People suggesting that we are on the edge of doing it really are making a wishful guess. I prefer not to go there. It is wondered if any readers know of plausible reasons theorized why each species only has so many generations before the process breaks down. Is it sort of a planned obsolescence so to make way for more vibrant and fresh molds as and evolutionary devise?

A better answer and suggestion is cryogenic freezing. Then it does not matter how long it takes to re-write our code. It also would require fixing the damage done by freezing, too. But in this successful case, the first person to 'live' a 1,000 years may well be not only born, but quite legally _dead_ as well. He or she is in a vat of liquid nitrogen somewhere. Such a notion would require the years frozen to be added into the tally, very suspended animation so to speak. If an alternate view is taken, that only active life is taken into account, then we may have to wait a few generations longer before the title becomes truth.